ARE YOU THIRSTY?

Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "If you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated." As a former soccer player, hydration was very important. It was necessary to drink sufficient water every day and especially the 24 hours before a game to prevent dehydration during the competition, for it was difficult to replenish fluids quickly enough while running around for two hours. The more hydrated I was, the more apt I was to play at peak performance; the less hydrated I was, the more likely I was to become fatigued, ineffective, and perhaps even have my muscles cramp up.

Even now, although I am not playing sports at the same intensity every day, I can see the importance of drinking enough water (the same could be said for getting enough sleep). I find the more water I drink - especially in place of coffee, soda, beer, etc - the better I feel, the more sound I sleep, the more energy I have, the easier it is to fend off colds, etc. And the better I feel, the healthier I am, and the more energy I have leads to being more productive at home/work, easier exercise, and generally enjoying life more. (Now, I'm not saying that drinking water leads to happiness like some magical fountain, but I am saying it is one of many factors that I have noticed that makes a difference in my quality of life.)

Now that I know this and have experienced this correlation, I have been able to be more intentional about how much water I drink. Most of us have heard that people are supposed to drink a doctor-recommended minimum of 64 ounces of water each day. (That's eight 8-ounce glasses, or more than the equivalent of 5 cans of soda.) Its one thing to know how much to drink; its another to be intentional enough to actually drink that much. Every day. And more on the days that require it. Every week. Every month. Every year. For the rest of your life.

Sounds like a lot of work - a lot of being intentional. But if that's what it takes to be healthy - which can help lead to happiness - isn't it worth a little effort on the front end and a little effort each day, one day at a time? Isn't it worth it to avoid thirst at the very minimum? Fatigue? Weakness? Sickness? I know this is extreme, but what if we never drank at all? We would die... eventually.

And so it is with communication and relationships.

Water is to our bodies, as communication is to our relationships. Instead of thirst, fatigue, and illness, without proper or adequate communication we can experience misunderstandings, frustration, and loneliness as symptoms that appear.

Like our bodies, our relationships require a certain level of communication to maintain themselves. Each relationship we are in requires a different level (quality, depth and quantity) of communication. My relationship with my spouse requires much more and much better communication that my relationship with my mail carrier. Some days communication comes naturally and easily because we're around each other and nothing is going on to distract us. Other days/weeks, communication is more difficult because of work, kids, other responsibilities, etc. Being intentional about communicating is so important because otherwise life will get in the way. I would say this is true for ALL relationships, not just for people living in the same house.

If you're not communicating well with your employees, co-workers, or superiors, how effective would you be as a company if you didn't know what/how each other was doing?

If you're not communicating well with friends, are they going to feel as connected and feel those positive feelings that made them want to be friends with you in the first place?

If you're dog didn't communicate with you, would you know when to let him outside or would you be cleaning up messes?

Again, my recommendation - for whatever its worth - is to be intentional about your communication with others. Set aside time on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Make a covenant with yourself to make communication a priority. If you are not a communicative person, and you are living with a spouse/partner, then use helpful tools like "3 things that happened today and how you felt about them" or describing how each of your five senses were stimulated that day or buy a book or questions (even "would you rather" books). Plan date night for the first Monday of every month. Read a chapter from a book each night and discuss. Even with non-partners, set aside time to call, text, email, write, meet with, or talk to those people.

I'm just sayin...

...be intentional about communication - get your daily allotment in - before your relationships get thirsty.

Why Jump Ahead?

Have you ever heard someone say something to the effect of, "I wish I could just jump ahead 5 years (or some interval of time)"? Usually its said by someone on the verge of, or in the middle of, a situation that is less than desirable. For example, I remember saying something like this in college, especially in my last semester. I didn't want to continue to trudge through the slow process, the daily grind, the early mornings, the late nights, the studying, the exams, etc. I just wanted to jump ahead to the end of the semester or graduation. I knew I'd make it, but I didn't want to wait for it, particularly if I had to deal with the "crap".

So, I admit that I have said something like, "I wish I could just get to graduation" - or something remotely close to that. We have all probably said or heard someone else say something to that effect at some point in our lives.

But recently I realized that that is a foolish statement - or at least a statement that doesn't really make sense if you really think about it. Let me tell you why I say so:

To begin, I will pull from mathematical theory. Envision a timeline, if you will, that starts with your birth on one end and continues (visually to the right like a y-axis) into infinity - though likely more like to 78 or so. Note that your "present" life is some point on that line between birth (point zero) and the right end of the line which represents the future. As it were, that "present" point would slowly move to the right as time passes by. If life had a pause button, we could stop/pause your "present" life. We could also just choose any point in your life up until "present" that would take a snapshot of your life at that time. Now as any mathematician would know, there are an infinite amount of points between point zero and, say, point 78. We generally count our life in years, months, days - and we could go down to hours, minutes, seconds, fractions of seconds, etc. But when we talk about a "point" in time, a "point" really has no significance as far as duration; it is so minuscule, it really almost doesn't exist at all. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that we, as humans, cannot detect or sense a specific "point" in time - even as it is happening. [For instance, if you were to prick your finger with a needle, although you can see the needle hit your finger with your eyes and it appears to happen at the exact same time that you feel the needle with your finger, in actuality, there have been an infinite amount of "points" between the time the needle actually did touch your finger and the point at with you saw it and the point at with you felt it (since it takes time - however little - for signals to pass through your body from your eyes and fingers to your brain).]

What I'm getting at is that as far as the above example illustrates, everything we experience, we experience so quickly (in time) that it is basically in the past before we even really comprehend it. By the time you are done saying the word "now" it is already in the past. As I see it, the idea of "experience" or "present" is really just those memories that are most recent. So, whether something happened to me one millionth of a nanosecond ago or 6 months ago or 12 years ago, its all in the past and is a "memory" or an "experience" from the past.

Where I'm going with this is that even if someone were to skip ahead in life, nothing would really be or seem different at that particular point than if they went through the time in the first place (assuming they didn't want to forget or erase from memory the time they skipped): the things that was most recent would be more fresh in the mind and the things that happened longest ago would be deeper in memory, JUST LIKE IT IS NOW.

So the idea of skipping ahead is kind of like moving a scroll bar on a computer's (dare I say iTunes) video controls: just because you jump farther ahead, it doesn't change, alter, or undo anything before that point. It still exists and you would still know its there. So if you don't like your current situation, it is pointless to wish to jump forward, because even if you could it wouldn't be any different then just getting there in normal time. But since you can't anyway, instead of wishing, why don't you be proactive and do something about it?

Who Am I?

I was walking into work last week, and for some reason I was thinking about how the average job interview process is lame - for the most part. How does someone describe themselves? "Tell me about yourself." "What are your strengths and weaknesses." Etc, etc. I don't think it is possible to say "who you are." A description of "who I am" is like describing a photograph: its static. I can vaguely describe my appearance in terms of measurements and colors and ideas of relativity, but how does one accurately describe "who they are"?
"WHO I AM" isn't consistent. Who I am changes. It is not static. I can maybe tell you about who I was or who I want to be, but not who I am. Unless you want me to tell you who I am right this second. I can do that. But that won't do you, or I, or anyone else any good two second from now. My point is, who I am changes every day as I take on new knowledge and experiences. Who I am also changes, to a certain extent, based on my environment or situation.
One could argue that we are the same person no matter where we are - and I can see that argument - but I'm talking more about the outward behavior part of who I am. In other words, the part that people see. Call it the part that would make you decide if you would want to be my friend or not. For example, even though I am the same person everywhere, I am different at church than I am at a bar on New Years Eve. I don't mean to suggest that I have dissociative identity disorder (DID, f/k/a Multiple Personality Disorder), just that the context/situation I am in somewhat dictates how I behave.
This reminds me of the Nature vs. Nurture debate: are we who we are? Or are we 'trained' to be a certain way? Are we strongly influenced by our environment. For those of you who took Psychology 101, you may remember the similar debate about personality traits. The "Big 5" personality traits are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These have been analyzed, studied, and debated for years, but have held up remarkably well in our disposable world. Take each of the big five:
Openness: would I be as OPEN in a job interview as I would be with my best friend of 40 years?
Conscientiousness: would I be as conscientious with my brother as I would be on a third date with a woman I really liked?
Extraversion: would I be as extraverted in line at the DMV as I would at my 21st birthday party?
Abreeableness: would I be as agreeable in divorce court as I would be on my wedding day?
I would answer "NO" quite emphatically to each of those questions; I don't know about you.
So, I am assuming at this point we can agree that "personality" - at least to a certain extent - can change based on situations or context. Included in that - and where I'm heading - is the area of context that includes people. Let me explain:
I think specifically which people we are with, more than any other factor of context, determines our behavior - our personality - more than any other factor, such as time, location, etc, etc. Who am I with? Who is around me? Who am I interacting with? If I am a soldier in Iraq, I would probably act much differently with my comrades in the middle of the desert than in the middle of town, because there are other people present. Or even the same town at night versus during the middle of the day when people are walking around. Many of the environmental factors may have changed, yet its the people that would most affect my behavior.
Who I am is not something necessarily within me - at least operationally speaking. I (and therefore you) cannot "measure" who I am within my own head. I may be able to think it or say it, but until it is exihibited, it just isn't. It doesn't exist. It cannot be measureable. Further, who I am is only measureable by some other person. Its relative and relational. Read that again: RELATIVE and RELATIONAL. Look at the BIG FIVE personality traist above again. ALL FIVE are relational and relative. I would include other so-called personality traits like honesty, trustworthyness, funny, caring, etc, etc to be the same.
RELATIONAL:
Relational, to me, means that each of the personality traits cannot be experienced in a vacuum by myself. I cannot be agreeable to myself. I cannot be open to experiencing myself, because I am me. I cannot be dishonest to myself, because I know what I know. All of these traits must include another person. They can only be measured as they are exhibited within a relationship. They ARE the relationship.
RELATIVE:
Relative, because they are all abstract terms without measurement. Of course you could measure the percentage of time someone is honest versus not honest - or you could try - but there is no absolute scale for conscientiousness or neuroticism. All of the traits are on open ended spectrums with no set endpoints or even relative range. The relativity comes from our personal experience, meaning Person A is more agreeable than Person B. Person C is less extroverted than Person D. We continue to place people on multiple spectrums all based on our experience. But since our experiences/pasts are different, "WHO I AM" is going to be different to everyone since everyones' spectrums are different.
One of my favorite person examples of this is from college - though the same can be said for bosses at work or friends of friends: when scheduling classes for the upcoming semester, I would have acquaintences that would compare courses and professors. I often heard a phrase like, "Ooh. Don't take that professor, he/she's really tough/mean/bad/dumb/[insert favorite negative personality trait here]." More often than not (roughly 100% of the time), those professors were my favorite professor of that semester. There is a lot to be said for that - many different variables and factors - but my point is, how can I base my opinion of anyone on a third party's opinion? Or rather, how should I? Or even better, why would I? when I know that personalities are relational and relative. Who someone is to me will be much different that who someone is to another person. Our "relationship" - which is what I call that space "between" two people - is unique to those two people. Its a constant give and take of information/communication/behavior. Its a "dance", if you will.
So, who am I? You may all call me Ryan, but I am somebody different to each one of you. I am who I am to you. And you are who you are to me. We are.... we.

Pessimist vs. Optimist

If you've read my blog before, you know I spend a lot of time thinking - especially about people. The other day I was thinking and wondering what the difference was between optimists and pessimists. Probability would lead me to think that good and bad things happen to just about everyone; and the number of good and bad things even out over time. There might be good days and bad days, good months and bad months, good years and bad years, but overall things probably just about even out. That being said, we probably all know people who are (or at least seem) happy nearly every day, and - vice versa - people who are mad/sad everyday and complain about everything. So, I guess I should clarify that I'm calling perpetually happy/positive people "Optimists" and perpetually negative people - though not clinically depressed - "Pessimists". And I do not consider people who ACT happy in public but are really miserable in private to be optimists; those people are not optimists or happy, just good actors.

Generally speaking, I tend to view or see each human being as being on a nearly infinite amount of spectrums for every imaginable physiological, biological, and personality trait - "level of optimism/pessimism" being just one of them.

What I came up with is that our existence is made up of successive, or simultaneous, neutral events. Without getting into constructivism, events are not good or bad in and of themselves. People construct their 'reality' based on previous experiences and attitudes toward those experiences.

Assuming events are neutral and people alone attribute values to them, most people have the ability to (and/or just do) reframe how events impact them. Reframing is a psychology term that roughly equates to "spinning". I think optimists have the ability to reframe, or spin, more situations in their own minds. For example, let's say a person is driving down the road and is held to a slower than ideal speed by a car driving slow in front of them. A pessimist would probably get frustrated and upset and perhance even complain or yell (heaven forbid tailgate the person in front), whereas an optimist might simply not worry about it. The optimist may even justify why the person in front of them is going slow - because they are looking for an address or trying to be safe. Some optimists might even be able to reframe the situation as "meant to be", like maybe by going slow, they will avoid getting a ticket or getting in an accident as if the slow driver was sent by God to keep the optimist out of trouble.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Do you reframe things in your mind to have them "fit" a happier reality? Or is the world out to get you?

Me? I'm a realist. It is what it is and I call it how I see it. ;)

"I'm sorry"

I apologize in advance that this entry is pathetically similar to the "love" entry I wrote just a few days ago, but...

Why do people get so hung up on hearing the words, "I'm sorry." I, for one, do not. But many people do; they cannot function in a relationship after a disagreement/fight/problem until they hear those words. Sincere or not, does hearing those words make everything better? Can people not function or forgive without those words? Does saying those words "earn" the right to be treated normal again solely because those words were uttered? Is it that simple?

Parents "force" their children to apologize after doing something wrong. The children learn to say "I'm sorry" to get out of a timeout, do be able to play again, to earn their treat back, but do they really mean it? Are they sincere? Do they really grasp the idea of remorse and forgiveness?

Me? I prefer someone to SHOW me they are sorry. Saying you're sorry is fine and dandy, and I appreciate the gesture, but talk is cheap. SHOW me you are sorry by your actions. Show me you are remorseful and that you are making strides to prevent the same infraction from happeneing again in the future. Show me you are humbled and earn my trust back. Saying you're sorry only shows me you have manners, and as a wise man once told me, "manners are a just a social lubricant." Manners are great, but they're not as great as a loyal, trustworthy friend.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many times you err and ask for forgiveness, I will always forgive you - that's not the issue - but there comes a time where I will cut my losses and just stop being around you. I forgive you and love you as a brother, but I don't care to be around you because you make me something other than happy.

McCain or Obama or Other

Lets get this out of the way: I'm an independent. I don't want to be associated with a specific party, because I don't agree with ALL of either party's motives/perspectives. I cannot be totally objective, because I am pretty sure I know who I'm voting for. But, this entry is now about who to vote for really; its more about how to vote. Let me explain...

Over the past few months I've heard people say which presidential candidate they are going to vote for and why. Some reasons are unique, but I hear a lot of people basing their decision on how each candidate will affect them personally.

For example: one person said they would vote for McCain because Obama would hurt their business. Another person said they would vote for Obama because Obama would provide better health care benefits and this person had a disease that may/will require a lot of medical attention over the next 4 years.

There are two reasons why I think this kind of narrow-focused decision making has flaws:
Firstly, when has a candidate every tried doing everything he/she said they would during a campaign? Secondly, even if they want to do something, there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent every idea a candidate has from coming to fruition. That being said, I realize you have to base your decision on something... and perhaps it is at least a good starting point. But I digress...

The real question that those explanations brought up for me is, is it better to choose a candidate that best fits your individual needs or best fits the needs of the country?

If I choose a candidate that helps me and my relatively small group of people, is that selfish and a good use of democratic process? What about everyone else?
If I get what I want, but the rest of the country goes to shit because I don't care about anything but me, am I really going to be that well off?

Forgive me, but it goes back to systems thinking. Many people are egocentric and more or less think about how the candidates will affect them (and maybe their families and close friends) directly. Most people also are looking at the static picture instead of the long term ramifications of decisions.
But like a budget, if one thing goes up, something else must go down. If a candidate put all of the budget into health care, what would happen to education? If education lacks, are the doctors caring for us going to be as good? If they gave a tax break to businesses, who will be taxed? The employees, who will then need a higher salary to provide for their families. So which is worse for the business owner, being taxes or paying higher wages? What's the difference?
Another example is the upper class getting a tax break. They probably think its great because its so much more money they can keep. But if they get a tax break, then its very likely that the lower classes won't. That won't cause - but it could play a part - in poverty and increased crime. Who knows, maybe someone in that lower class will rob the upper class citizen who got a tax break and thought life was grand.

So, I think you get my point. Choosing a candidate over an issue or two doesn't really make a lot of sense. It seems like both candidates are aiming for similar things, but just going about it differently anyway. We're all going to get screwed the same amount by each candidate, one way or another.

I prefer to choose a candidate on who things in this order:
1) Putting time and effort into the foundation of the country. Band-aid programs really chap my ass. Treating the symptom doesn't solve the problem or change the process. Pulling troops out of Iraq makes a lot of sense for today (because you get troops out, save lives today anyway, and stop spending money initially) but what will happen after that? There's no guarantee that spending will be over at that time. (I don't mean to pick on Obama, its just a real life example.) Tax breaks sound great, but at what expense? Are we jeopardizing schools, healthcare, crime, etc? Putting more cops on the streets may reduce crime in a certain area, but only until the criminals move to a different area. I want to see a candidate put time, money, and effort into families, parenting, education, etc. Relationships and Intellect will make this company strong. With good interpersonal relationships and intelligence, success and financial prosper are sure to follow. Sure, that will take time and the results may not show up until after that president is done, but it will make American stronger longer.
2) A proven track record. I can't predict the future, but noticing a pattern from the actual past can at least be something to go by. Lofty goals are great, but does the candidate have a proven record of doing what they say and being successful?

Obviously, this is just one man's opinions. I am always very open to other ways of seeing things. Please tell me how you decide or what you think is best for America.

Love. Don't just say you do.

One of the best words of advice my mother gave me when I was younger was, "Love is an action, not a feeling." That always made a lot of sense to me. More recently, I've integrated that statement with my interest in cybernetics and communication theory and systems theory, which has augmented the idea.

One cannot love in a vacuum. Other than "loving yourself," one cannot love without an "other" to direct the love toward, an other person, thing, etc. As much as I love animals and nature, let's use the example of two people. If we consider two ideas, 1) One cannot not communicate, and 2) All behavior is communication, then it leads to support the claim that "love" is an action - or behavior or communication - rather than some abstract term representing a feeling.

Maybe its better to back up a level and discuss the idea that love has various definitions and (I think) those definitions are often mixed up and/or misused:
There is a "love" that is used to describe the way someone feels when they are getting to know someone and are excited by their interactions. Going forward I will refer to this as a chemical response called infatuation.
I will refer to the observable action or behavior - or manifestation of the infatuation - as "love".
Also, for the sake of breadth, "love" will include any and all favorable behavior - or behavior that is received as favorable by the receiver - including but not limited to romantic love, platonic love, brotherly love, parental love, Samaritan love, etc.

In our lives, do we say things like, "I love you" or "I have always loved you" or "I will always love you"? What does that mean? If person A says, "I love person B" does that mean Person A feels good inside because of the relationship with person B or that Person A behaves in a loving manner toward person B? I think too often it is the former, especially in newer and younger relationships. In either definition, does that mean that we always feel excited, every minute of every day? Does it mean that we behave in a loving manner every second of every day? Is it just a cliche? Am I un-romanticizing it by calling out its meaning?

How do we love? Are we overt with our love or do we keep it all to ourselves and just think about it? Does it do any good to think about loving? Which is better: saying "I love you" or doing something that shows love like doing the dishes or giving a back rub or playing a game or listening intently?

It might be worth asking yourself: is my love about me and my feelings or about my relationship, my interaction, my behavior with another person? and see if it changes anything.

What about hate?

Truth vs. Fact

I recently read a newspaper article about a series of events that I had previously been privy to. I had probably heard and/or seen and/or experienced more about these events than the article writer had prior to writing the article. The article, based on the numerous lengthy, emotional comments left on the internet, evoked an polarizing and emotional response in its readers as well as all involved.
As I was thinking about the article and the responses, it reminded me of the old cliche, "Don't believe everything you read." I find it amazing that as untrusting a society that we are of others (in general), we tend to take newspapers for fact. We make a lot of (false) assumptions by doing so. We assume that the newpaper company, the editor, the writer, and all witnesses and quoters are all being 100% truthful. We also assume that all of those same people were given the right facts and have "done their homework" to attain all of the facts. We may also assume that all of the above are unbiased. (In the article I read, the writer definitely had more intention than simply writing the newsworthy. Its amazing how "reporting the facts" can look so one-sided depending on which facts/truths are reported and which facts/truths are omitted.)
More importantly, I realized the vast difference between Truth and Fact. I liken it, slightly, to the childhood game of telephone, whereas the farther you get from the "horses mouth," the more a message is distorted. The second to last person might be "telling the truth" based on what they heard, but that doesn't make it fact.
And so it is with a reporter or newswriter: unless they witness an actual event themselves (and even then there's no guarantee that FACT will be written, because it will subjectively written based on that writer's interpretation), a reporter/writer of the news is usually getting their information from someone else. When have two witnesses of an accident "remembered" exactly the same thing even though they had witnessed the same accident? So even though the "victim", witness, and reporter all honestly believe they are telling the truth - and maybe they are - that doesn't necessarily mean that what is written in the newspaper is fact.

What I took away from this is that I need to be careful how and what I judge. There have been many times while watching Dateline or 20/20 that I will judge the "villain" in the news story based on what has been shown to me; but I need to realize that I do not have all of the facts and my opinions are based solely on what has been reported to me and what has NOT been reported to me.

I also realized there are a lot of people in our "highly educated town of Madison" that are emotionally reactive, ignorant, and just plain rude, regardless of which side they took.
Here's to hoping I'm not one of them and never become one of them.

Baggage

I recently attended a two hour "seminar" of one of my professors at Edgewood. The topic of the seminar was basically "What personal baggage do we (as therapists) bring into the therapy session, or the 'system' if you will." For example, my professor is very turned off by racism - meaning she doesn't like it and it gets her upset easily when people are being racist. After the 9/11 catastrophe, one of her clients made some very derogatory comments generalizing all middle eastern people. It took all of my professor's energy to not "yell" at her client.

So, it got all of us attendee's minds going about what "triggers" we have. What sets us off? What will set us off? What are we sensitive about? Why? What do we hold important to us? How will we respond? How can we keep from responding negatively, thus turning our client off or damaging the open and trusting relationship?

This got me thinking that we could all benefit from knowing our hot buttons. Society could run a lot smoother if everyone was just a little more introspective.

Consider the parent that yells at a young referee at their child's soccer game or the person who screams out their window (and flashes the bird) to someone who cuts them off while driving down the road. Why do they overreact?
What about yelling at kids or a spouse/partner or an employee?
What about complaining all day about Favre or flooding or who's house gets rebuilt by ABC?
Do people really get that upset about each of those things? Why some people and not others?

As I've stated in previous posts, I think a lot of how people respond to things (including reviews) has a lot more to do with the person responding than the thing or situation they are responding to. I'd venture to say that most emotion is internal and is only elicited by external situations. Almost as if we look for an opportunity to release it. We need the release.

What if everyone knew where their pent up emotion came from, knew a healthy way to release it, and could come up with a successful way to avoid negative/damaging feelings from building up inside them in the future?

Culture and Guilt

I'll admit: I complain about being "poor". Its probably more out of anxiety that I've put on myself or wanting attention, but I complain. Oh, whoa is me, I've got only one salary, but I have 5 mouths to feed, a house payment, 2 old cars to maintain, clothing, bills, etc, etc. Oh yeah, and then there's the student loans and credit card bills. I pray that we can tread water for a few years until...

Then the other day I was listening to a man who was asking for donations to help people in poor African nations. A few days later, American Idol had their yearly episode of Idol Gives Back where they collect millions of dollars to aid both American and African causes. I also had a friend and a coworker recently travel to Africa and talk about the rampant sickness, poverty, violence, etc. (I realize Africa is not the only continent that has problems and needs help, it just happened to come up a few times in the past few weeks.)

One of the startling statistics I heard went something like this: $100 can feed a child in one of these poor nations for one year. The person telling me/us this urged us to consider donating $100, which is the cost of a nice dinner in Madison. And he's right. I've plenty of times gone out for a nice dinner with my wife or my wife and some friends and dropped $100. For one stupid meal that probably wasn't much more satisfying than a bowl of Cookie Crisp and left me feeling queasy for eating too much. Too much? I feel more guilty about eating TOO MUCH for ONE MEAL on $100 when that same amount will give a child enough food to live on for ONE YEAR???

I'm an ass.

I'm trying to figure out how I can lose weight when millions of people are trying to figure out how they're going to eat their next meal. I throw away pounds of bread, meat, cheese, and fruit each month that go bad before I get a chance to eat it.

So. Should I feel bad? I do, but should I? Should I feel bad about the country, region, city, family, or culture I was born into? Should I feel bad that I live in a culture that encourages individualism and personal success? Should I feel bad that my culture's economics is different than another's? Should I put myself in a worse situation in my culture in order to relieve my guilt based on another culture? Should I take into consideration that my culture allows me to live very comfortably with negative assets? I own a fraction of a house, but I owe for student loans and credit cards up the wazoo! Therefore, I am technically poorer (because my debts outweigh my assets) than people who have nothing even though I live in a society that allows that to be and makes for a rather comfortable quality of life.

Who's problem is this then? Is it a problem? What should I do about it? What can I do about it? Is it up to me to solve? Should other people expect handouts or are they the ones responsible for creating a solution? Am I the only one?

Choices Choices

Consider: At any given moment a person's choice of what to do is based purely on what they want to do, the "best option".
Repercussions: You cannot make anyone do - or want to do - anything; but you can change their environment which may allow them choose to want to do something themselves.

I'm thinking out loud here, so please feel free to add comments if you have counterpositives. I can't think of any myself right now.

Examples:
1) I'm walking down the street and see a $10.00 bill. What do I do? I pick it up because at that moment it is worth stopping and bending over for the $10.00. Would I do that for one penny? Depends on the day, what I'm doing, where I'm going, and how my back is feeling.
2) I give to a charity of my choice. Do I really enjoy giving my money away? Generally no. I have a hard time paying $1.00 for a bottle of soda. But, I do get a warm feeling from knowing I'm helping someone who may need it more than I do. Guilt or Philanthropy or Karma or whatever can be very motivating, but each play a part in my wanting to do something. They don't cause it, but they play a part.
3) I clean the kitchen before my wife gets a chance. Do I love cleaning the kitchen? Hell no. Am I pretty confident that my wife will appreciate it? Yes. Am I hopeful that by cleaning my wife will be less busy, less stressed, have more time, and want to kiss me more? Yes. Have I made her kiss me? No. But have I altered her environment enough to help her want to? Perhaps.
4) My alarm goes off in the morning of a weekday. Do I want to get up? Not really. But my want to get up is slightly more than my want of getting fired for being late, or even the disappointing look of a boss for walking in late. I'm not going to take then entire day off, so I might as well be on time to avoid all of the negatives. So getting out of bed is the "best option".
5) A robber puts a gun to my head and demands I give him my money. At that point I WANT to give him my money because I'm hoping that by doing so he will take the gun away from my head. Did I want to give this person my money before they "demanded" it? Not really. But did the robber make me give him his money? No. I chose to because it was the best option. I could have not, but that could have led to the robber taking my money out of my dead hands.

Now consider my feelings or reactions to the above examples. Did I feel good about those? Some, yes. Some, no.
Specifically look at numbers 3 and 5. In one instance my wife and I are creating a positive environment by doing things that may perpetuate a positive cycle of behavior. Conversely, in number 5, I probably would not like that robber and would probably not want to associate with him any more - or even be around him. Do we ever figuratively "put a gun to someone's head"? Give ultimatums? Threats? Bribes? We may get what we want, and we may get that person to alter what they want, but at what cost?

Not so deep thought about heaven

I'll admit: I watch way more reality TV than I should. One minute would be too much for most of them, but I am a regular of American Idol, usually Dancing with the Stars, a few of The Newlyweds (or whatever it was called) and even got hooked on the end of The Biggest Loser (did you see that woman lost almost half her body weight?). I'm sure its because of these shows - and others that I had watched in the past - that this thought even came into my mind. Its a joke, so don't get too worked up if you are a conservative Christian, but...

What if you just died, and you were walking up a long, white, winding staircase into the clouds. After many steps (and you never get tired, because your going up to heaven) into a clearing in the clouds you see "THE PEARLY GATES" in all their glory. You hear the trumpets and harps and kazoos (hey, its my fantasy) playing the most beautiful music your ears have ever experienced.

Soon, you hear a soft click and the gates start to open inward. They move slow enough to be beautiful and grand, but quick enough that you don't anticipate what's behind them. When the gates are about half open, you see a man emerge from the fog behind. You suppose the man to be THE St. Peter, though you can't help but notice he looks and acts an awful lot like Jeff Probst (from Survivor). He congratulates you on making it this far and "playing the game" so well. Oddly he shows you a short 2-minute video that highlights (and lowlights) your life. Of course the video had some background music performed by Kelly Clarkson. After the video Peter, or Jeff, invites you to walk through the gates. You straighten your attire and think to yourself how easy that was: you didn't even have to answer any questions and they're letting you right in to heaven.

Immediately your arrogance is rewarded with a heavy dose of Karma as you realize Peter was only inviting you into heaven's waiting room - a polite way of saying, "Come in off the cloud, we can talk in here." Inside the foyer are all of the people you have ever come in contact with, like your own personal Verizon network, except no one is holding a cell phone. You see your parents, your children, your other family, your friends, teachers, bosses, coworkers, classmates, crossing guard, bus driver, lunch lady, the police officer that gave you a speeding ticket, and even the truck driver you yelled at for cutting you off on the highway. Amazingly you only recognize about one third of the people in the room. You don't even complete the thought, "Who are all of..." when you realize all of the peoples' lives you have affected who you didn't even know. You are humbled and terrified. Who...? When...? How...? Why...? Your mind is spinning. You feel dizzy. You think you might... Then you see that Peter is still smiling and you take that as a good sign, whether it is or isn't. You're not sure whether to run to your family and hug them or not; in fact you're not even sure if they're real or spirits or angels or something else. You decide to stay put, just inside the gates, until you are addressed by Peter.

After giving you ample time to scan the room, Peter says to you, "You've made it this far, but now it is up to them whether you are admitted into heaven or not." You feel as though you just ran full speed into a brick wall. Disoriented comes to mind. Everything you've done has lead you to this point and will now decide your fate. Your future. Your existence. Hundreds of thoughts fill your mind: tricking your sister, lying to your parents, breaking that girls heart, stealing that food, breaking that rule, not giving money to that beggar, not running in the charity run, missing that church service, lying to God... There are too many to take. You try to battle your own mind by thinking of all of the good things you've done too: doing well in school, volunteering at the soup kitchen, going to church every other time, raising a good family, helping the elderly neighbor, praying for people.... But even you are having a hard time convincing yourself that there have been more "goods" than "bads". Again, the How's and Why's berate your mind. Is this for real? Is my fate in the hands of people I love and people I don't even know?

Jeff, er Peter turns to the crowd of people and asks, "Has this person done what is necessary to enter the gates of heaven for eternity?" With out ever taking their eyes off of you, each person writes something on a small piece of paper and drops it into a collection-type basket going around. It seems to take an eternity just to collect all of the votes - or whatever they are - yet, when its completed, it has gone too fast. The basket disappears. You move your head back and forth to see if you can spot the holder of your destiny, to no avail.

After only a minute a tall, handsome man in a dark suit walks toward you and Peter from the side. Peter introduces him as a representative from Ernst & Young, who have undoubtedly tabulated the votes and are delivering them via secret envelope. You are too focused and scared to realize how cheezy that is. Peter accepts the envelope, waits for the representative to dismiss himself, and opens the envelope. Upon seeing the result, Peter cannot help but utter an indiscriminate, "Huh."

He slowly raises his eyes to you, and looks you straight in the eyes as if he's piercing your soul, and says, "Ryan...we'll tell you your fate right after these messages..."

Global Warming My Ass!

So, Madison, Wisconsin has now recorded well over 100 inches of total snowfall this winter. In case you are reading this from Siberia, that is a record for us. This would have been a great year to live in an apartment or own a condo where someone else was responsible for snow removal. Since March 1st - or perhaps even a little before that - I have boycotted shoveling. After repeated back pains, shoulder and hand soreness, and one broken shovel, I have decided that it will be warmer than 32 degrees eventually and the sun will melt it for me. No sense in overdoing it. I only shovel the end of the driveway where the city plows put a 4-foot wall of ice and snow baracading me in my own driveway so that my wife and kids can get out once in a while. Oh, and on the news last night, the meteorologist mentioned we should be getting another 4-7 inches later this week. Sweet.

So, where the hell has Al Gore been lately? I noticed he didn't have any speaking engagements about global warming in Wisconsin lately. Him and other uneducated people blaming everything on global warming is really starting to annoy me. I'm not saying we shouldn't be conscious about our environment; I'm just saying stop blaming everything on global warming when you have no evidence to support your claim. I'm pretty sure Global Warming wasn't responsible for Madison, WI getting 100+ inches of snowfall. Or was it?

What's the point?

I love to read. I love to watch movies. I love listening to new music and new artists. I have absolutely no problem commenting on what I read, see, and hear. I will watch Ebert and Roeper. I've even joked with friends about the idea of becoming a movie reviewer.

But just recently I wondered, "What's the point of professional 'reviews'?" Why should I take stock in what any other person thinks of anything, let alone "works of art". Isn't everything subjective?

In my opinion, a review tells me a lot more about the reviewer than it does about what that person is reviewing.

A person will review a movie based on how that movie impacts them, and that has a lot more to do what that person is about, or what that person is dealing with at that time. Will I like a movie just because someone else likes that movie - a so-called "expert"? Take a look at your own family or your workplace or your class at school or your local grocery store: do you think everyone in those groups would like or dislike all of the same movies?

Further, I think the same person would review the same movie differently based on where and when they watch it. The review would be different if the reviewer watched the movie 2 hours apart, 2 days apart, 2 months apart, or 2 years apart. So even if the I agreed with the expert reviewer one time, what is to say I would have at another time?

For example, I recently saw The Pursuit of Happyness about a man struggling to become successful and his young son. The movie touched me deeply and I generally liked it because I could relate to it. That being said, I would probably not have liked it near as much 5 years ago before I was married, or had a serious career, or had a son who I am crazy about.

If I am going to take anything away from a published review, then I would first need to read a brief biography on the reviewer so I know where they are coming from. Otherwise it won't really help.

So, if everything I say is even remotely accurate, then what is the point of professional reviewers publishing reviews about anything: books, movies, music, restaurants, or anything? What's the point?

Trifecta!

I was listening to ESPN radio this morning, and two guys were talking about Indiana University men's basketball coaches over the last few years. They were talking about the ideal coach having three "qualities":
1) They are friendly - with players, administration, media, fans, etc. In other words, "They play nice with others".
2) They are compliant - meaning they graduate their players, they don't break any NCAA rules, they don't cheat, etc.
3) They are successful; they win a lot of games.

Originally, Indiana's coach was Bob Knight. Bob was compliant and successful, but was not very nice to his players and the media. So they fired him.

Then, Mike Davis came along. He was super nice and compliant, but he didn't win enough basketball games. So they fired him.

Now, Indiana has Kelvin Sampson. He is nice and wins basketball games, but apparently he broke 5 NCAA rules (again) and lied to the NCAA about it. So, what are they going to do? Probably fire him.

My point is, the two radio guys were saying how hard it is to find a top-notch coach who can fulfill all three of the above requirements.

I thought Shouldn't ALL employees at every company/organization hold these three qualities!?!?! Shouldn't we all be nice, compliant, and good at what we do? Should it be that hard to find someone who is (other than at the State)?

I'd love to hear some stories about you and your co-workers (or EX-coworkers)!